The Bible was first compiled around the year 400 by the Catholic Church. It was put together by compiling 73 different books. There are many reasons why the bishops of the Church chose these particular books, but the most important reason was accuracy and date of writing. The books that were omitted were not included because they were written several hundred years after the books that were. For example, the four Biblical Gospels were all written within a few decades of Christ's death, and all four agree with each other. The apocryphal gospels, however, were all written an average of 300 years after Christ's death, and have numerous contradictions; clearly they are not accurate. It amuses me when the uninformed try to claim there's some sort of Vatican "conspiracy" behind omitting false books; if failing to include unreliable sources is a conspiracy, then the entire academic community has been in conspiracy against us since the dawn of time.

For most of Christian history, the predominant version of the Bible was the Latin Vulgate, translated in the early fifth century by St. Jerome. The Vulgate was translated from a Greek version called the Septuagint, itself a translation of the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Because of this, the Vulgate did not have a very high reputation for accuracy. Nevertheless, the Vulgate was the basis for the first major English translation, the Douey-Rheims version, which was first published in 1609. Thus, the first major English Bible was translated no fewer than three times (Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English)!

As a remedy, King James set his scholars to work on what was then known as the Authorized Version, and what today is known as the King James Version. King James's translators worked directly from the original texts, and if it hadn't of been for their king they would have succeeded in producing a very accurate translation. However, the Protestant Reformation was in full swing, and King James ordered his scholars to make some very serious revisions. This included changing the wording of several important passages and even deleting seven books from the Old Testament! This is why Protestant Bibles today contain only 66 books, whereas Catholic Bibles contain all original 73. This is something else that amuses me; it's way too easy to edit the Bible to make it say what you want, and then try to claim that the Church that uses the original Bible is unbiblical!

It wasn't until the 1950s that a reliable English translation of the Bible was produced; this was the Revised Standard Version, a joint work of both Catholic and Protestant churches that made use of every available ancient manuscript. The RSV is still widely considered to be the most accurate translation available, being the preferred version in many seminaries. Many other versions have been published since then, some of the most popular being the New American Bible in the Catholic Church and the New International Version in Protestant Churches. Both of these Bibles are generally considered reliable, though neither is considered to be as accurate as the RSV. A handful of translations today seek to paraphrase the original text to make it more readable to a modern audience; foremost among these are the Living Word Translation and the Good News Bible. Obviously, none of these paraphrases are considered to be reliable, but their readability sometimes makes them popular in Sunday schools and other child-focused ministries.

The most basic Christian belief about the Bible - a belief shared by every denomination - is that it is the inspired Word of God. We believe that this is why the books that were included are in it, and we also believe that the books that were omitted were so because they were not inspired or otherwise unreliable. There is no such thing as a perfect translation, and even the RSV remains the most reliable today I would not be surprised if a better version came along at some point. The Bible's authority of God's written Word is indisputable; thus, any sound translation must strive to translate the original texts as accurately as possible, and translations that fail to do this are of little use for doctrinal purposes. We cannot simply edit God's word as we see fit; we must read it and understand as He has written it, so that we can understand the message that He intends to tell us.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

My use of the term "creative" implies a dynamic, "ever-changing design" - a primal first principle of movement - flow - malleability.

The word "design" just seems a bit static for my personal expressive taste, whereas the word "creative" implies motion of designs that never are really here, but always moving past themselves, although they are self-similar to every other instance of themselves.

The "design" (if you will) is a diagram in motion. You cannot separate the diagram from its motion. You cannot separate the noun of being from the verb of being. They are eternally fused.

Robert Kernodle, I guess the difference was that my focus was the artist not the art. Yes, often it is the art that is created that makes the artist. But I believe that is our human limitation that we are unable to see how things are beyond the surface and we only begin and attempt to understand only through a medium we are able to see and touch (but we know that we can only experience a tiny fraction of the true reality). Because of this we often forget that before a thing is created a creator is. So lets move on and start talking about the creator and stop comparing as if they were on the same playing field; evolution is an expression of a pattern within a created environment and not an expression of creation.

. . . evolution is an expression of a pattern within a created environment and not an expression of creation.

Sorry want2know and kotoreru,

I quite do NOT like this. Want2know's entreaty to "move on" and focus on his preferred use of terms draws attention to the false dichotomy he attempts to create between substance and motion. A pattern cannot exist without a substance in which to exist,.. I quite agree. But a substance cannot exist without its simultaneous predisposition to patterning. It's a yin/yang thing with no absolute divide.

So to force my attention onto the yang without the equal consideration of the yin is to force what (in my mind) is a fatal conceptual disposition that causes lots of problems in our conceptual world today.

want2know's following statement illustrates what I'm saying here:

. . . we often forget that before a thing is created .. a creator is

Note the absolute divide between "creator" and "created", which I would equate rougly to the absolute divide between motion (except I would use progressive, CREATING) and substance.

One does not exist without the other. Evolution is, therefore, an expression of a being design - a moving design - a first principle of substance AND motion eternally, indivisibly fused.

So, forgive me, want2know, if I cannot sail exactly with you on this one.

robertkernodle wrote:.A pattern cannot exist without a substance in which to exist,.. I quite agree. But a substance cannot exist without its simultaneous predisposition to patterning. It's a yin/yang thing with no absolute divide.

Sounds kinda vague, not sure what you're saying.

Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; ~Niebuhr

But a substance cannot exist without its simultaneous predisposition to patterning.

To me a pattern must exist within the mind of an artist before the substance comes to life. Such as "Fluldism". When a paint is splashed on to a canvas the artist expects how it will flow, considering the force and direction, which the paint is applied with gravity, which the paint is affected by. At no point in its action does the paint and canvas take their own creativity but only in the original moment when the artist applies the paint does the creativity exist. Sure the paint is affected by many factors once it leaves the artist's direct physical contact but I can't possibly think the factors themselves are creating but only the means which the artist have used for his creativity. Thus evolution is an expression of a pattern within a created environment and not an expression of creation.